America - its all a bit odd...

Control of the population through LE is exactly how unlawful government starts and maintains power.

At what point is a government unlawful, does it have to be all the way through from top to bottom? Does it start at the top, in which case is it OK to resist the untainted public facing part? Does it start at the bottom, in which case do you resist LE officers before it spreads to the top?
Does a few officers acting out of line represent all of government though??

Normally one thinks unlawful government will start at the top and use all instruments at it's disposal to enforce it's will on the populace. Colorado was a great example when the State tried to implement the red flag laws, allowing for the seizure of a person's firearms with some very murky legislation. Which was deemed not enforceable by many in the LE community who were not going to bother with it. LE does not create legislation, they enforce it when it is necessary. The people who try to make the rules it seems, are the first to disregard the rights of others when they don't agree with them. They also forget that they also answer to the people.


But it looks like the Blue/Red Divide is in full force.
 

Bodenplatte

War Hero
You misunderstand. Much of the debate given here is about the right to bear arms to defend themselves against the government. Hence the question.
I do not misunderstand. The Second Amendment is short and sweet - 27 words. It is very ambiguous in that it links the right to bear arms to the maintenance of a militia. It does not go into any further detail about how the right can be exercised.
SCOTUS has ruled fairly recently that the "well regulated militia" condition is no bar to the individuals right to keep and bear,vide DC v Heller 2008. I have to say that the wording of the Supreme Court decision in Heller seems, to me, to fly in the face of the Amendment, but when all is said and done it's a matter for the American people and courts and I can't get a cockstand about it.

It pisses me off slightly when Americans parade their 2A rights (as they are presently interpreted) as though they are something the rest of the world admires and aspires to, but we, poor lambs, are not allowed to by our tyrannical governments. Far from it - the rest of us are quite content with laws that sensibly control possession and use of firearms. Indeed, Britain had a right to bear arms written into our own 1689 Bill of Rights (a statute still in force) but at least it contained it's own sensible limitations.
 
Last edited:
I do not misunderstand. The Second Amendment is short and sweet - 27 words. It is very ambiguous in that it links the right to bear arms to the maintenance of a militia. It does not go into any further detail about how the right can be exercised.
SCOTUS has ruled fairly recently that the "well regulated militia" condition is no bar to the individuals right to keep and bear,vjde DC v Heller 2008. I have to say that the wording of the Supreme Court decision in Heller seems, to me, to fly in the face of the Amendment, but when all is said and done it's a matter for the American people and courts and I can't get a cockstand about it.

It pisses me off slightly when Americans parade their 2A rights (as they are presently interpreted) as though they are something the rest of the world admires and aspires to, but we, poor lambs, are not allowed to by our tyrannical governments. Far from it - the rest of us are quite content with laws that sensibly control possession and use of firearms. Indeed, Britain had a right to bear arms written into our own 1689 Bill of Rights (a statute still in force) but at least it contained it's own sensible limitations.
I can only speak for Florida. The Florida constitution says that there are 2 militias in the state, the organised militia which is the national guard and the unorganised militia which is all other legal residents in the state over the age of 17 who have not opted out or is not disbarred from owning firearms.
So most people in the state have the right to own guns under the constitution by the strictest interpretation.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
 
Control of the population through LE is exactly how unlawful government starts and maintains power.

At what point is a government unlawful, does it have to be all the way through from top to bottom? Does it start at the top, in which case is it OK to resist the untainted public facing part? Does it start at the bottom, in which case do you resist LE officers before it spreads to the top?
What do you think? This is a govt desperately trying to disarm the law abiding while paying little or no attention to the criminal element.

Fellow South African,

Shortly after launching a case against government’s ban on NGOs and church-based organisations distributing food to desperate and hungry people, we have received confirmation that our case will be heard on 19 June! Added to this, the court has issued an order preventing SAPS from enforcing any action against these organisations for the next month, until the case is heard.

This is very good news.

As a result of our legal action, funded with your help, soup kitchens that can run safely will no longer be forced to throw away donated food and watch people go hungry.

Support for our court action, challenging the irrational and unconstitutional aspects of the hard national lockdown, makes a difference.

• The day after we filed papers challenging the ban on e-commerce, the pressure saw government reverse their irrational ban, announcing that all products could be sold online.

• Our challenge in the High Court to the discriminatory use of coronavirus emergency relief funds has been set down for hearing on 1 June in the Pretoria High Court.

• Our challenges to the night curfew and the restriction on exercise hours helped see these irrational restrictions lifted in Lockdown Level 3. We will pursue them again in the event that South Africa goes back to Level 4 and these irrational restrictions resurface.

• We have applied for direct access to the Constitutional Court to challenge the constitutionality of the aspect of the Disaster Management Act that allows the National Command Council to make decisions as they please, without any checks and balances. We should receive confirmation from the court soon as to whether they will hear the case. In the event that the Constitutional Court refuses our application for direct access, we shall approach the High Court to hear the application.

Whilst it is a pity that we often have to resort to court action to have the opinions of South Africans and their businesses heard, and listened to, we will keep ensuring that the necessary court action is taken.

Your support is invaluable.

If you can stretch a little further, in what is an enormously unsettling time, please consider making a donation towards our court action here.

Every Rand helps, the difference is already being felt in communities.

Kind regards,


John Steenhuisen
DA Leader


 

Penguin142

War Hero
We are all well aware that Hollywood is on another planet, but I am a little confused, maybe it is two other planets? In the series NCIS (LA), Deakes is on secondment from the LAPD, properly structured police department: in the (for us) new series Deputy, Los Angeles has a Sheriff's department in which a deputy is pushed into the post of sheriff, over the heads of captains and such, in accordance with a law from the days of horseback posses. Can a denizen of the land of the free inform me please?
 
Actors are luvvies who lie for a living. Their lies are written for them by screenwriters.

Apparently their opinions on every subject you can imagine are highly sought after by the hard of thinking though.
 
We are all well aware that Hollywood is on another planet, but I am a little confused, maybe it is two other planets? In the series NCIS (LA), Deakes is on secondment from the LAPD, properly structured police department: in the (for us) new series Deputy, Los Angeles has a Sheriff's department in which a deputy is pushed into the post of sheriff, over the heads of captains and such, in accordance with a law from the days of horseback posses. Can a denizen of the land of the free inform me please?
Typically a Sheriff is elected by the voters of the county.

 
We are all well aware that Hollywood is on another planet, but I am a little confused, maybe it is two other planets? In the series NCIS (LA), Deakes is on secondment from the LAPD, properly structured police department: in the (for us) new series Deputy, Los Angeles has a Sheriff's department in which a deputy is pushed into the post of sheriff, over the heads of captains and such, in accordance with a law from the days of horseback posses. Can a denizen of the land of the free inform me please?
Both are 'Properly structured' police agencies - LAPD is responsible for L.A city areas and the Sheriffs take care of L.A county (unincorporated areas that dont have their own city police depts).

LAPD police chief is appointed by the mayor (often from within LAPD) and the Sheriff is elected with some L.A county oversight.

Current LAPD chief was from within the LAPD ranks.

Current Sheriff was from within LASD ranks.
 
Last edited:
But shooting an LE officer who is arresting somebody does not quite fit into the same context as resisting an unlawful government.

But fyi it seems the four officers in Minneapolis have been fired for their conduct.


I imagine charges will be in their future at this rate.
Interesting in that MPD does authorize neck restraint

5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)


Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
For life saving purposes, or;
On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)
After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.
An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject
.

 
Interesting in that MPD does authorize neck restraint

5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)


Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
For life saving purposes, or;
On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)
After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.
An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject
.

I am afraid the officers did not pay enough attention to the suspects health. The man was in distress and you have to be ready to let up if necessary.
 
I am afraid the officers did not pay enough attention to the suspects health. The man was in distress and you have to be ready to let up if necessary.
From what we can see in the video, apart from, and despite verbal pleading to the officer kneeling on the detainee's neck, from the members of the public watching, zero attention was paid to his health...
 
I am afraid the officers did not pay enough attention to the suspects health. The man was in distress and you have to be ready to let up if necessary.
Looked like a blatant disregard for his life in my opinion. I will be surprised if the Ex-cop doesn’t do some serious time.

we don’t know all the facts though - the ahmaud Aubery case... I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes the other way with no to little jail time.
 
Anyway, what do our American friends think of Dominic Cummings?
My social media feed is full of him, but I don’t see the need for the huge media response.
 
Looked like a blatant disregard for his life in my opinion. I will be surprised if the Ex-cop doesn’t do some serious time.

we don’t know all the facts though - the ahmaud Aubery case... I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes the other way with no to little jail time.
He is still innocent until proven guilty. But I don’t think a jury would have much sympathy for him.
 

Latest Threads

Top